Is Rafa Nadal really better than Roger Federer?

The defeat he suffered in the second round of Wimbledon this year should not really be considered because the Swiss maestro is already in the twilight of his career and is about to turn 32 this August. Since losing the 2005 Australian Open semifinal to Marat Safin, up until 2009 US open, the seven-time Wimbledon champion did not fall to anyone other than Nadal and Djokovic in a Grand Slam, which itself is an amazing record. On the other hand, the 27-year-old Spaniard has lost to many lesser ranked individuals like Gonzalez, Youzhny and Ferrer, to name a few, in majors.

It clearly illustrates the ease with which Roger had handled his opponents during his hey days, as compared to his arch rival. Many Nadal fans have the habit of blaming injuries for their idol’s defeats in the early stages of the tournament. They fail to understand that injuries are part and parcel of the game and given the style of his play, it is he who invites them, more often than not. But Federer, on the contrary, has in his possession a variety of shots which do not require him to play a grinding game like the Spaniard. So he has been able to preserve his energy in the initial stages and save his best for the last. This ability of the Swiss alone indicates that he is the most complete player in the history of the game.

Federer has succumbed to Rafa many a time only because of his mental block against the Spaniard. So it would be appropriate for us to call Nadal as the Swiss’ nemesis.

You may be a better runner than the other athletes participating in a triathlon, but when you are unable to excel at swimming and cycling, which are the early hurdles, you are never going to run your way home first.

Likewise, although Nadal has the ability to beat Federer, it is of hardly any use if he has not been able to beat the other six players consistently in Grand Slams. It is not Roger’s fault that he has faced players other than Nadal in 15 Grand Slam finals which he won out of 17. So, what is the logic in bringing head-to-head records in determining which one of the two is the best?

The record of the eight titles which the southpaw has won in Monte Carlo and Roland Garros may never be broken. But Federer, the 2009 French Open champion, has many more such records in his name, records which will probably remain with him forever. Some of them are listed here below:

1. 36 successive quarterfinals in Grand Slams (can’t help mentioning this one).2. 10 continuous Grand Slam final appearances.3. Four back-to-back Wimbledon and US open victories (2004, 2005, 2006 & 2007).4. Winning three Grand Slams in a year thrice (2004, 2006 and 2007).5. Record number of weeks as World No.1 (302 weeks).6. Victories in 6 World Tour Finals and counting (Remember, only the top eight players compete in this tournament and, more importantly, Nadal has never won this).7. Reaching seven continuous Wimbledon finals (2003-2009). Even Nadal does not have this type of record in French open.8. 55 continuous appearances in Grand Slams. (Exemplifies the fitness level of Fedex).

The aforementioned records are just a handful of Federer’s overall accomplishments. The Spaniard, if he keeps himself fit for the next few years, may surpass Federer’s Grand Slam count just by adding more French Opens. But the big question is if he will be fit enough to do so. Even if he equals or overtakes Federer’s Grand Slam count, the Swiss’ overall records in the game may never be broken.

Will McEnroe ever consider looking into Federer’s achievements again before judging who the greatest ever is?